B. C. PATEL, C. J.

( 1 ) THE present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was listed before this bench in view of the order made by a Division Bench on 17th March, 2005. The division Bench hearing the matter expressed an opinion that the decision of this court in case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Gupta and Ors. 96 (2002) DLT 225 (DB) requires reconsideration where in an identical situation the view was taken that the State is liable to pay interest as it was a statutory liability even for the period for which interest was waived by the claimant. This view was expressed without considering the decision of the Apex court in the case of State of Assam and Anr. vs. Jitendra kumar Senapati and Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 969. The division Bench in view of the decision of Apex court in case of Jitendra Kumar Senapati (Supra) expressed the view that the Larger Bench should consider whether there can be waiver of interest or not. Factual Matrix

( 2 ) THE short facts required to be considered are as under: - a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4. 3. 1963, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 13. 12. 1966. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector made an award no. 36/81-82. In view of public notice and notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, interested persons lodged their claims. After considering the same the award was made on 10-11-1981 fixing the market value of acquired land under the aforesaid notification in three categories, namely, A, B and C at Rs. 2400/-, Rs. 2100/- and Rs. 1800/- per bigha respectively. It is against this award, dissatisfied claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. In the present case it is required to be noted that the claimant was claiming compensation as an asami, for acquisition of land bearing khasra no. 33/10 admeasuring 2 bighas 8 biswas. However, it appears that he claimed to be in possession for a limited period of five years. It is contended that the claimant re-claimed the land and subsequently he became bhoomidar of the land in question. Against the claim made by the claimant, Union of India as well as gaon Sabha, Badli, filed written statements raising preliminary objection that the claimant was not a recorded bhoomidar of the land in question and the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was correct and proper and did not require any interference. Order made by Reference Court

( 3 ) WHEN the matter was before the reference court, on 12-5-1983 the claimant requested the court to stay the reference application sine die, which was placed before the court under Section 18 of the Act, till the decision of another reference made under Section 30-31 of the Act. The claimant through counsel looking to the nature of claim referred above, undertook that the claimant will not claim interest for the period during which the reference under Section 18 of the Act would remain stayed. It is upon the claimants say the court hearing the reference at the relevant time made the order as under:-

IN view of the above statement of the counsel for the petitioner this reference is stayed sine die till the decision of the reference court under Section 30/31 of the Act. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim interest for the period during which this reference shall remain stayed.

( 4 ) IT transpires that thereafter, on 6. 3. 2000 the reference was taken up and the Delhi Development authority (hereinafter as the DDA) was joined as a party respondent. However, no written statement was filed and the issues were framed on 25-2-2000. Reference court allowed the reference application under Section 18 of the act to the extent indicated in para 15 of the judgment, by enhancing the compensation @ Rs. 5600/- per bigha and other statutory benefits as indicated in the said para. However, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document